Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:07:16 -0600
Reply-To: Tom Hargrave <thargrav@HIWAAY.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Tom Hargrave <thargrav@HIWAAY.NET>
Subject: Re: Motor Oil (Synthetic)
In-Reply-To: <29590576.3609.1263398945216.JavaMail.mcneely4@127.0.0.1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I've been around long enough to remember the article and I probably have a printout put away somewhere. For those younger list members, yes, at one time we actually printed things & filed the paper for safe keeping.
Anyways, the study compared oil from different manufacturers across many 100,000 of miles. And they included synthetic oils in the study. The result was no measurable difference between oils, synthetic or Dino.
"From memory", they also explained how engine oils work in the lubrication system and they stated that as long as the oil was of high enough viscosity to maintain a good oil film between metal parts there was no major wear of the metal parts. But I'm trusting memory and this may have been from another paper.
I do know that oil works by replacing hard friction - the friction between 2 parts like a bearing sleeve and crank journal, with fluid friction - the internal friction of the oil as the crank turns in the bearing sleeve & is supported by a oil film. In other words, oil reduces wear because the metal parts never actually touch each other, even at rest. Also, oil flows through the bearings to pull out heat. In other words, an oiling system is intentionally leaky - all of the bearings leak back into the crank case and the leaks are filled back up with the oil pump.
Then why not use water? We use oil & not something like water because of the oil's ability to flow into tight spaces and because of its film strength. Water does not have the ability to build a film like oil plus water's huge surface tension would keep it from flowing properly into bearings.
Thanks,
Tom Hargrave
256-656-1924
Our Web Sites:
www.kegkits.com
www.stir-plate.com
www.andyshotsauce.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf Of Dave Mcneely
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:09 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: Motor Oil (Synthetic)
I found a link, but was denied access:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
I also found that the report was in 1996. Wow, how time flies. I'll
look a bit more, but not forever. David
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:53 AM, mcneely4@cox.net wrote:
> Yes, the vehicles used in the study were NYC taxicabs.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Allan Streib wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:27 -0500, "Dave Mcneely" wrote:
>>
>>> Well, for what it's worth, when consumer reports, using modern
>>> nonsynthetic oils, ran vehicles under severe conditions in New York
>>> City, and extended the oil change interval long beyond the factory
>>> recommendations, they found no difference in wear compared to
>>> engines
>>> that were treated according to factory recommendations.
>>
>> Was this the taxicab service test? Remember that NYC taxicabs run
>> pretty much 24x7, or at least for many hours at a time. That's
>> actually
>> better for the motor and oil than a lot of short trips where the oil
>> is
>> cold half the time.
>>
>> Allan