this looks like the Amsoil test that they conduct to create that graph that I posted up.
-
***Text Box Error UPDATE*** Folks- we were able to fix the underlying issue with the missing text box on the forum. Everything should be back to normal. - Honcho
Full Synthetic or Conv Motor Oil
- Thread starter dlynes
- Start date
I saw this test in person using Mobil 1, Amsoil and others and they all made the machine squeal except the Schaeffer oil.
Gary
Gary
doing well my man!!
living in Augusta.
Should come up and we'll plan trip to the mountains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afTcVB8cW2M
The number one reason to use full synthetic in an NSX that you may sell within the next 10 years: to be honestly say "nothing but xxxx full synthetic, changed every yyyy miles." That is unless you track the car. Then some other reasons probably beat this one out for the number-one spot.
My NSX had always had Mobile 1 from previous owners through me until this year.
I switched to Pennzoil Ultra figuring if it was the Recommended Oil for Ferrari North America, it should be plenty good for my Japanese Ferrari.
http://www.autoinsane.com/2010/03/01/news/maintenance/new-pennzoil-ultra-ferrari-recommended/
I switched to Pennzoil Ultra figuring if it was the Recommended Oil for Ferrari North America, it should be plenty good for my Japanese Ferrari.
http://www.autoinsane.com/2010/03/01/news/maintenance/new-pennzoil-ultra-ferrari-recommended/
Could you keep your oil as I would be happy to use it in any vehicle I own. LOL
at what point would you switch to a "high Mileage" synthetic oil?
or
would you even recommend it?
I just bought a truck with 100k miles...
I am definatley switching my nsx to synthetic...
but should I switch both?
or
would you even recommend it?
I just bought a truck with 100k miles...
I am definatley switching my nsx to synthetic...
but should I switch both?
I would just switch to Ultra.
High mileage oil is just marketing gimmick IMHO.
High mileage oil is just marketing gimmick IMHO.
Full Synthetic or Conventional Oil
Motul. Now you're talking.....Motul is a top tier synthetic. Mobil 1 and Pennzoil are probably best of the rest. When Motul got outrageously expensive a while back, my technical advisor suggested I switch to Redline. Now my NSX gets nothing but Redline. My daily driver (a Bimmer) gets Mobil 1. I don't track it while I do track the NSX, so that extra little bit of protection from Redline is not necessary.
Remember when many of the sports cars (Porsche, Ferrari, etc.) in European races had big Mobil 1 decals on the side? The funny thing was that Mobil 1 paid big dollars to sponsor them, but the engines generally had Motul inside them.
Seing that Pennzoil advertisement makes me wonder how much Pennzoil paid Ferrari to "pick" their oil. In the 1960s and 1970s Ferrari took sponsorship from Fram and used their filters on their street cars. I don't think you will find too many NSX owners running out to buy a Fram filter for their cars.
It's good advertising but remember it is just dollars buying endorsements.
Motul. Now you're talking.....Motul is a top tier synthetic. Mobil 1 and Pennzoil are probably best of the rest. When Motul got outrageously expensive a while back, my technical advisor suggested I switch to Redline. Now my NSX gets nothing but Redline. My daily driver (a Bimmer) gets Mobil 1. I don't track it while I do track the NSX, so that extra little bit of protection from Redline is not necessary.
Remember when many of the sports cars (Porsche, Ferrari, etc.) in European races had big Mobil 1 decals on the side? The funny thing was that Mobil 1 paid big dollars to sponsor them, but the engines generally had Motul inside them.
Seing that Pennzoil advertisement makes me wonder how much Pennzoil paid Ferrari to "pick" their oil. In the 1960s and 1970s Ferrari took sponsorship from Fram and used their filters on their street cars. I don't think you will find too many NSX owners running out to buy a Fram filter for their cars.
It's good advertising but remember it is just dollars buying endorsements.
I know Driving Ambition uses and swears by Motul.
I haven't looked into it.
Have you heard of Neo Oil? Over 50% of the European Formula 1 cars use some type of NEO product. I don't think any other oil maker can make that sorta claim
I used to run Redline in the RX7 engine and tranny. Same for the NSX engine and tranny.
But I stopped using Redline since it messed up my syncros in my Rx7 tranny twice (MTL and MT90). In the NSX it never shifted well. Felt notchy.
I trust Amsoil in my engine, tranny, brake fluid, powersteering, and coolant in my fleet of cars.
Pennzoil is trusted in my engines. Both of my GTO and NSX engines have been opened up after using Pennzoil and the 2 seperate machine shops were impressed with no varnish and virtually no engine wear.
Ever heard of Torco? the US military trust them in their UAV after doing research without telling Torco for years. Torco's differential oil is what I trust in the GTO and S-10. It's been the only product that doesn't seem to break down and make the diff chatter.
With regards to your statement about Pennzoil paying Ferrari. U may be right. But that doesn't mean that they are paying Ferrari to endorse and recommend an inferior product.
If you were the head of Ferrari GT engine development would you let just anyone use ur face, name, and rank to recommend an inferior product that could be damaging engines of rich and powerful people's cars? I'm sure there are a larger percentage of organized crime members that drive Ferrari than NSX.
I'd rather resign then have my good name recommend an inferior product.
I haven't looked into it.
Have you heard of Neo Oil? Over 50% of the European Formula 1 cars use some type of NEO product. I don't think any other oil maker can make that sorta claim
I used to run Redline in the RX7 engine and tranny. Same for the NSX engine and tranny.
But I stopped using Redline since it messed up my syncros in my Rx7 tranny twice (MTL and MT90). In the NSX it never shifted well. Felt notchy.
I trust Amsoil in my engine, tranny, brake fluid, powersteering, and coolant in my fleet of cars.
Pennzoil is trusted in my engines. Both of my GTO and NSX engines have been opened up after using Pennzoil and the 2 seperate machine shops were impressed with no varnish and virtually no engine wear.
Ever heard of Torco? the US military trust them in their UAV after doing research without telling Torco for years. Torco's differential oil is what I trust in the GTO and S-10. It's been the only product that doesn't seem to break down and make the diff chatter.
With regards to your statement about Pennzoil paying Ferrari. U may be right. But that doesn't mean that they are paying Ferrari to endorse and recommend an inferior product.
If you were the head of Ferrari GT engine development would you let just anyone use ur face, name, and rank to recommend an inferior product that could be damaging engines of rich and powerful people's cars? I'm sure there are a larger percentage of organized crime members that drive Ferrari than NSX.
I'd rather resign then have my good name recommend an inferior product.
Last edited:
I use Red Line oil in the NSX and my Civic Hybrid.
I use Red Line MTL in the NSX but I will be switching to Honda white cap soon. I use Red Line H-Type CVT fluid in the Civic Hybrid.
I have heard good things about Motul, but up to this point I have only used their brake fluid.
My engine builder swears by Neo, but they (Neo) have a distribution problem (i.e., their website and their retailers suck). In addition, they are the most expensive oil out there. I have yet to see any UOAs (used oil analyses) that have convinced me one way or another.
The UOAs on BITOG have shown very favorable results for Pennzoil Ultra in the Mobil1 vs. Pennzoil debate. I will probably try Pennzoil Ultra in my wife's car at next oil change, and will give it a try in the Civic as soon as they come out with a 0w20 formulation.
I use Red Line MTL in the NSX but I will be switching to Honda white cap soon. I use Red Line H-Type CVT fluid in the Civic Hybrid.
I have heard good things about Motul, but up to this point I have only used their brake fluid.
My engine builder swears by Neo, but they (Neo) have a distribution problem (i.e., their website and their retailers suck). In addition, they are the most expensive oil out there. I have yet to see any UOAs (used oil analyses) that have convinced me one way or another.
The UOAs on BITOG have shown very favorable results for Pennzoil Ultra in the Mobil1 vs. Pennzoil debate. I will probably try Pennzoil Ultra in my wife's car at next oil change, and will give it a try in the Civic as soon as they come out with a 0w20 formulation.
NSX2PLAY.... I had that same thought about Penzoil Ultra being the recommended oil by Ferrari of America... about wondering if Penzoil paid $$$$ to get that endorsement?
I believe I saw some other posts endorsing it on Prime, so I decided to switch to Ultra this year.
I enjoy threads like this to get the lastest information on what is out there and what others use.
I believe I saw some other posts endorsing it on Prime, so I decided to switch to Ultra this year.
I enjoy threads like this to get the lastest information on what is out there and what others use.
Neo Oil shouldn't be that far from you right? Both of ya'll in So Cal. Certainly closer than me.
I don't know if they are the most expensive oil or not. I know Torco is right up there too.
Anyone that is using group 5 basestock (which I know Torco and Redline has a blend of it with group 4) is already expensive.
I've never seen 100% pure group 5 synthetic oil since a quart of it will probably never sell and people that use it may be more inclined to leave it in the engine for the life of the engine. :wink:
I just got off the phone with them and they said that their oils are a blend of group 3 & 4.
Thery found that group 3 is plenty good enough. What matters is the additives more than just the basestock.
This seems to be the same messaging that the Torco rep told me.
History of Synthetic Engine Oil
Dr. Hermann Zorn of I.G. Farben Industries in Germany actually began to search for lubricants with the properties of natural oils but without the tendencies to gel or gum when used in an engine environment. His work led to the preparation of over 3500 esters in the late 1930s and early 1940s including diesters, polyolesters, and banana oil. During the same time period in the United States, Dr. W.A. Zisman working at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) was also synthesizing esters, especially diesters.
The first real synthetic engine oils appeared for aircraft engines in World War II concurrently in Germany and in the United States. The motivation in Germany may be primarily related to resource issues, but also to functional performance requirements. The base oils for aircraft engines in Germany were based on a blend of an adipic acid ester with a poly(ethylene) oil e.g. polymerized olefins/ethylene. Because synthethic oils make engine starting in winter easier and significantly decrease soot deposits in the oil radiator, the US Air Force adopted polyglycols (polypropylene glycol monobutylethers) beginning in March 1944.
Synthetic engine oil
In the early 1960s, Chevron U.S.A integrated the first commercial utilization of hydrocracking technology at its Richmond California refinery. By 1993 the company introduced lubricant Isodewaxing technology making Chevron one of the world's largest manufacturers of API (category II and III) base oils. Today, API (category III) base oils are marketed to the general public as fully synthetic motor oil. On July 1, 2000, Chevron Corp. combined efforts with Phillips Petroleum Co., now ConocoPhillips, to become Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LLC. The Chevron Phillips venture is one of the top producers of polyolefin (PAO) Group IV base stocks, some of which are used for automotive synthetic motor oils.
Although used in the aviation and aerospace industries beginning in the early 1950s, the first synthetic oil developed for automotive combustion engines and fully recognized by the American Petroleum Institute (API) was produced by the Hatco Corp. in 1972 as per specific specification requirements by Albert J. Amatuzio, current President and CEO of Amsoil Inc. This first API-rated synthetic motor oil was distributed exclusively through Amsoil Inc., meeting API (SE/CC) specifications and was based on a 10W-40 grade Diester API (category V) formulation. Today Amsoil Inc. markets a full line of API (category IV) licensed synthetic motor oil and many other API (category IV) PAO-base oil formulations that are claimed by Amsoil to meet or exceed current API requirements.
Other early synthetic motor oils marketed included "The Original Syn!" by SynLube in 1969, NEO Oil Company (formally EON) in 1970; they were dibasic acide esters, or diesters, and polyol ester-based synthetic lubricants. In 1971 All-Proof and Mobil 1, introduced to North America in 1974 a 5W-20 grade(category IV) PAO-base oil.
Types of Synthetic Oil
Synthetic Base Stocks
Synthetic motor oils are man made oils from the following classes of lubricants:
Polyalphaolefin (PAO) = American Petroleum Institute (API) Group IV base oil
Synthetic esters, etc = API Group V base oils (non-PAO synthetics, including diesters, polyolesters, alklylated napthlenes, alkyklated benzenes, etc.)
Hydrocracked/Hydroisomerized = API Group III base oils. Chevron, Shell, and other petrochemical companies developed processes involving catalytic conversion of feed stocks under pressure in the presence of hydrogen into high quality mineral lubricating oil. In 2005, production of GTL (gas-to-liquid) Group III base stocks began, the best of which perform much like polyalphaolefin. Group III base stocks are considered synthetic motor oil only in the United States; elsewhere they are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic".
Semi-synthetic oil
Semi-synthetic oils (also called 'synthetic blends') are blends of mineral oil with no more than 30% synthetic oil. Designed to have many of the benefits of synthetic oil without matching the cost of pure synthetic oil. Motul introduced the first semi-synthetic motor oil in 1966.
Lubricants which have synthetic base stocks even lower 30%, high performance additive packs consisting of esters can also be considered as synthetic lubricants. Ratio of the synthetic base stock is generally used to define commodity codes among the customs declarations of tax purposes.
Other base stocks help semi-synthetic lubricants
Group II and Group III type base stocks help to formulate more economic type semi-synthetic lubricants. Group I, II, II+ and III type mineral base oil stocks are widely used in combination with additive packages, performance packages, ester and/or Group IV polyalphaolefins in order to formulate semi-synthetic based lubricants. Group III base oils are sometimes considered as synthetic but they are still classified as highest top level mineral base stocks. A Synthetic or Synthesized material is one that is produced by combining or building individual units into a unified entry. Synthetic base stocks as described above are man-made and tailored to have a controlled molecular structure with predictable properties, unlike mineral base oils which are complex mixtures of naturally occurring hydrocarbons.
Hydrocracked/Hydroisomerized = API Group III base oils. Chevron, Shell, and other petrochemical companies developed processes involving catalytic conversion of feed stocks under pressure in the presence of hydrogen into high quality mineral lubricating oil. In 2005 production of GTL (Gas-to-liquid) Group III base stocks began. Even though they are considered a synthetic product they are still mineral base stocks and counted as the mineral part of all semi-synthetic lubricants. Group III base stocks [with certain amount of mixture of PAOs and esters and Group V] are considered synthetic motor oil ONLY in the United States. Group III based lubricants are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic" in any market outside of the USA. Within the US, there are no official specifications, or standards as to which oils can be marketed as "synthetic".
Performance Advantages
The technical advantages of synthetic motor oils include:
Measurably better low and high temperature viscosity performance
Better chemical & shear stability
Decreased evaporative loss
Resistance to oxidation, thermal breakdown and oil sludge problems
Extended drain intervals with the environmental benefit of less oil waste.
Improved fuel economy in certain engine configurations.
Better lubrication on cold starts
Longer engine life
Disadvantages
The disadvantages of synthetic motor oils include:
The lower friction may make them unsuitable for break-in (i.e. the initial run-in period of the vehicle) where friction is desirable to cause wear. Improved engine part machining has made break-in less critical than it once was, though. Many modern cars now come with synthetic oil as a factory fill.
Potential decomposition problems in certain chemical environments (industrial use dominantly)
Potential stress cracking of plastic components like POM (polyoxymethylene) in the presence of PAOs (polyalphaolefins).
Synthetics do not hold lead in suspension as well as mineral oil, thus caution is advised when the engine is run on leaded fuel. As an example, leaded fuel is still commonly used in aviation (avgas).
In July 1996, Consumer Reports published the results of a two year motor oil test involving a fleet of 75 New York taxi cabs and found no noticeable advantage of synthetic oil over regular mineral oil. In their article, they noted that "Big-city cabs don't see many cold start-ups or long periods of high speed driving in extreme heat. But our test results relate to the most common type of severe service — stop-and-go city driving." According to their study, synthetic oil is "worth considering for extreme driving conditions: high ambient temperatures and high engine load, or very cold temperatures."
Dr. Hermann Zorn of I.G. Farben Industries in Germany actually began to search for lubricants with the properties of natural oils but without the tendencies to gel or gum when used in an engine environment. His work led to the preparation of over 3500 esters in the late 1930s and early 1940s including diesters, polyolesters, and banana oil. During the same time period in the United States, Dr. W.A. Zisman working at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) was also synthesizing esters, especially diesters.
The first real synthetic engine oils appeared for aircraft engines in World War II concurrently in Germany and in the United States. The motivation in Germany may be primarily related to resource issues, but also to functional performance requirements. The base oils for aircraft engines in Germany were based on a blend of an adipic acid ester with a poly(ethylene) oil e.g. polymerized olefins/ethylene. Because synthethic oils make engine starting in winter easier and significantly decrease soot deposits in the oil radiator, the US Air Force adopted polyglycols (polypropylene glycol monobutylethers) beginning in March 1944.
Synthetic engine oil
In the early 1960s, Chevron U.S.A integrated the first commercial utilization of hydrocracking technology at its Richmond California refinery. By 1993 the company introduced lubricant Isodewaxing technology making Chevron one of the world's largest manufacturers of API (category II and III) base oils. Today, API (category III) base oils are marketed to the general public as fully synthetic motor oil. On July 1, 2000, Chevron Corp. combined efforts with Phillips Petroleum Co., now ConocoPhillips, to become Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LLC. The Chevron Phillips venture is one of the top producers of polyolefin (PAO) Group IV base stocks, some of which are used for automotive synthetic motor oils.
Although used in the aviation and aerospace industries beginning in the early 1950s, the first synthetic oil developed for automotive combustion engines and fully recognized by the American Petroleum Institute (API) was produced by the Hatco Corp. in 1972 as per specific specification requirements by Albert J. Amatuzio, current President and CEO of Amsoil Inc. This first API-rated synthetic motor oil was distributed exclusively through Amsoil Inc., meeting API (SE/CC) specifications and was based on a 10W-40 grade Diester API (category V) formulation. Today Amsoil Inc. markets a full line of API (category IV) licensed synthetic motor oil and many other API (category IV) PAO-base oil formulations that are claimed by Amsoil to meet or exceed current API requirements.
Other early synthetic motor oils marketed included "The Original Syn!" by SynLube in 1969, NEO Oil Company (formally EON) in 1970; they were dibasic acide esters, or diesters, and polyol ester-based synthetic lubricants. In 1971 All-Proof and Mobil 1, introduced to North America in 1974 a 5W-20 grade(category IV) PAO-base oil.
Types of Synthetic Oil
Synthetic Base Stocks
Synthetic motor oils are man made oils from the following classes of lubricants:
Polyalphaolefin (PAO) = American Petroleum Institute (API) Group IV base oil
Synthetic esters, etc = API Group V base oils (non-PAO synthetics, including diesters, polyolesters, alklylated napthlenes, alkyklated benzenes, etc.)
Hydrocracked/Hydroisomerized = API Group III base oils. Chevron, Shell, and other petrochemical companies developed processes involving catalytic conversion of feed stocks under pressure in the presence of hydrogen into high quality mineral lubricating oil. In 2005, production of GTL (gas-to-liquid) Group III base stocks began, the best of which perform much like polyalphaolefin. Group III base stocks are considered synthetic motor oil only in the United States; elsewhere they are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic".
Semi-synthetic oil
Semi-synthetic oils (also called 'synthetic blends') are blends of mineral oil with no more than 30% synthetic oil. Designed to have many of the benefits of synthetic oil without matching the cost of pure synthetic oil. Motul introduced the first semi-synthetic motor oil in 1966.
Lubricants which have synthetic base stocks even lower 30%, high performance additive packs consisting of esters can also be considered as synthetic lubricants. Ratio of the synthetic base stock is generally used to define commodity codes among the customs declarations of tax purposes.
Other base stocks help semi-synthetic lubricants
Group II and Group III type base stocks help to formulate more economic type semi-synthetic lubricants. Group I, II, II+ and III type mineral base oil stocks are widely used in combination with additive packages, performance packages, ester and/or Group IV polyalphaolefins in order to formulate semi-synthetic based lubricants. Group III base oils are sometimes considered as synthetic but they are still classified as highest top level mineral base stocks. A Synthetic or Synthesized material is one that is produced by combining or building individual units into a unified entry. Synthetic base stocks as described above are man-made and tailored to have a controlled molecular structure with predictable properties, unlike mineral base oils which are complex mixtures of naturally occurring hydrocarbons.
Hydrocracked/Hydroisomerized = API Group III base oils. Chevron, Shell, and other petrochemical companies developed processes involving catalytic conversion of feed stocks under pressure in the presence of hydrogen into high quality mineral lubricating oil. In 2005 production of GTL (Gas-to-liquid) Group III base stocks began. Even though they are considered a synthetic product they are still mineral base stocks and counted as the mineral part of all semi-synthetic lubricants. Group III base stocks [with certain amount of mixture of PAOs and esters and Group V] are considered synthetic motor oil ONLY in the United States. Group III based lubricants are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic" in any market outside of the USA. Within the US, there are no official specifications, or standards as to which oils can be marketed as "synthetic".
Performance Advantages
The technical advantages of synthetic motor oils include:
Measurably better low and high temperature viscosity performance
Better chemical & shear stability
Decreased evaporative loss
Resistance to oxidation, thermal breakdown and oil sludge problems
Extended drain intervals with the environmental benefit of less oil waste.
Improved fuel economy in certain engine configurations.
Better lubrication on cold starts
Longer engine life
Disadvantages
The disadvantages of synthetic motor oils include:
The lower friction may make them unsuitable for break-in (i.e. the initial run-in period of the vehicle) where friction is desirable to cause wear. Improved engine part machining has made break-in less critical than it once was, though. Many modern cars now come with synthetic oil as a factory fill.
Potential decomposition problems in certain chemical environments (industrial use dominantly)
Potential stress cracking of plastic components like POM (polyoxymethylene) in the presence of PAOs (polyalphaolefins).
Synthetics do not hold lead in suspension as well as mineral oil, thus caution is advised when the engine is run on leaded fuel. As an example, leaded fuel is still commonly used in aviation (avgas).
In July 1996, Consumer Reports published the results of a two year motor oil test involving a fleet of 75 New York taxi cabs and found no noticeable advantage of synthetic oil over regular mineral oil. In their article, they noted that "Big-city cabs don't see many cold start-ups or long periods of high speed driving in extreme heat. But our test results relate to the most common type of severe service — stop-and-go city driving." According to their study, synthetic oil is "worth considering for extreme driving conditions: high ambient temperatures and high engine load, or very cold temperatures."
Last edited:
A little bit side tracked, BAT you shouldn't use synthetic in the RX7 motor, it will cause lotsa nasty trouble =( the oil must burn clean cause the rotary is designed to burn oil to begin with. Synthetic like Redline doesn't burn which causes problems. read thishttp://mazdatrix.com/faq/synthetc.htm
I don't think Ferrari would endorse inferior products like sub standard engine oils if they didn't feel that it was superior and fit for their picky clients.
The class action against Ferrari would exceed whatever endorsement $$$$ they may have received from Pennzoil. THe math wouldn't add up.
I put almost 300k miles on my 2 RX7s with Redline.... even though people said don't do it. ZERO issues. Even when I had the engine rebuilt a few times from detonation the mechanic (who converted) said that the parts that he usually see worn down were still in excellent condition for reuse.
The problem is that back then there were all sorts of synthetics and additives.
All it takes is for one story to surface up with a synthetic causing problem and everyone thinks all synthetics are bad.
My brother uses Ultra for his RX8. And since it's a Group 3 it's really a super refined mineral oil that is legally defined as a synthetic in the USA. SO it's probably the best oil for the rotary in that sense.
bump!
Interesting read. What is the source of this article?
I agree, they wouldn't completely sell out and recommend an inferior product. But, that the endorsement doesn't mean it is the best. Pennzoil Ultra is good oil and it is perfectly acceptable for street and track use. But does Ferrari's endorsement mean it is the best? Not in my opinion. IMHO Motul is the best and Redline is a close second. Yet, because of Motul's crazy price, I use Redline. In this case, second place is good enough.
if u think redline is in the top 2 spot you should research torco, neo oil, and amsoil
It is simply part of the big Shell Oil sponsorship deal Shell has with Ferrari.
Shell pays Ferrari a bunch of money to put their logo in the engine bay and on the F1 team.
Pennzoil is Shell's top oil. Nothing more than that.
just copy and paste with quotes and u will see.
Similar threads
- Locked
