FAR's for teardowns aren't that onerous, actually.

my point was that i think avengines are a much tougher lube application than light-duty passenger car engines. just as were the industrial application engines that i cited previously.

and my point persists, if syn is so good, so cost effective, why is it that these more severe service engines are not using it?

as i said before, mobil operated, exxon-mobil operates thousands of stationary, spark-ignited, natural gas fueled, recips. all over the world. yet, virtually none of them are operated on syn. why do you think that might be the case?

it is because there is no pay-back. more to the point, mobil conducts incredible long-term investigations into its lube oils. knowing what i know, if syn was better, mobil would be touting it for their production engines and the engines of others.

but they aren't doing that.

and virtuallly no one is touting syns for avrecips. and they are a more severe service engine that anything that you have ever operated[imho] in your vehicle.

let's go even further, what style lube to you think is being used in the emd and ge diesels that power the railroads? syn? NOT.

let us consider marine diesels, 4-stroke and cathedral 2-strokes. these are real engines that are developing 100% torque throughout their operating life. what kind of basestocks do you think they are using. syn? NOT.

what is so funny here is that the vehicular engine, a slacker among engines[sort of a gwbush in the guard type of engine], gets that miracle lubricant. the only engine in the world that doesn't really need it. but the engines that really work, severe service engines, run on dino.