Quote:
Originally Posted by vstech
I just don't see the benefit in mobil1 in a car with this much soot.
to me, mobil1 is GREAT in a car that you can swap a filter every 5K and be good, but the soot is not filtered out in these motors, (well, I guess a tiny amount through the bypass) and at the 5K mark, ya really have to change the oil.
synthetic is just so much more expensive than dino. if I gotta change the oil, this often, I'm gonna go with dino, or rotella syn(which is really just kinda syn)
it's an economic decision, not a better oil decision.
|
Rotella syn is not just kinda syn. It is synthetic oil. GroupIII actually has superior cleaning and stability properties, and does not have some of the drawbacks that PAO and POE do have. The best oil will not be all of something just because it is an expensive basestock. it will be a balanced product which maximize the advantages while minimizing the disadvantages of the overall chemistry. And remember, the add package is at least as important as the basestock, and a hefty portion of the cost too.
Let's also put a caveat on the drivers of syn versus conventional. It is absolutely engine/driver/use profile dependent. Syn is a better oil overall in all healthy engines for a number of reasons, most of which are well known. It is also an economic issue. If money was no object, syn would be the choice all the way. If extended drain intervals are an economic consideration (both materials and time), then syn is a driver. If cold flow or multiple starts is a driver, then syn is the choice.
Conventional makes sense to some because when applied in very large sumps, with relatively low RPM engines, running with good cooling, good crankcase ventilation and relatively low power density, it works fine. In an application like a 617, the tradeoff is really cold flow vs soot loading. The sump is large, power level is low, conventional works, unless you need the pumping benefit that syn offers. Doesnt mean that syn isnt always better for pumping up quickly, it just means that in as reliable and long-lived an engine as the 617, other issues prevail. A conventional will do 3000-5000 mile OCIs just fine, and not hit the 2% soot limit or the loss in TBN (always verify for your engine and use profile via UOA). A syn may have life, viscosity and TBN left, but be soot loaded too early. What is good for a 617 may not be the smartest choice for a 606.
Lots of aspects here... for an 83 300D, syn is purely a fast starting benefit. I concur. That said, for twice the price, syn does offer peace of mind and better flow and viscosity retention, and is IMPO a good decision.